Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Quaker2001

  1. Why the Summer Olympics are held in July, August despite heat It's not just NBC. Other broadcasters and sports federations have similar preferences for that window as well. Prospective bidders are free to propose dates outside that window if they want. That's what Doha did. Yes, they got rejected, but mostly because the IOC said Do-haha to them, not necessarily because of the dates. So this was a thing before the IOC became more flexible. Still, at the end of the day, it comes down to a decision and a potentially a vote. It's not an either/or whether or not proposing different dates is allowed or not. The Aussies can do whatever they want in that regard and the IOC will put that to a decision if they think it's in their best interests. Plus, remember about NBC.. they're locked in through 2032, but rights for the Olympics after that will be up for grabs. So if Australia is looking at the 2036 Olympics, what will it to do the value of those rights fees (and not just from NBC, but from other broadcasters) if the Olympics are scheduled for September or October. That's something the IOC voters will have to weigh the value of.
  2. Someone check to see if hell has frozen over.. looks like FYI and I agree on something again. If Brisbane needs to build a lot of venues and other infrastructure in order to host an Olympics, are they really the best option for an Olympics? Particularly in a country with 2 previous hosts which each have a lot more in place ready to go. They say it fits within the city's long-term plans, but that seems like a dangerous proposition there and one that could lead to cost overruns. Seems to go against what the IOC is looking for these days with an emphasis on existing venues? The Aussies get to make the call on this one, so if that's what they are willing to get behind, more power to them. But still, you look at the past handful of hosts and they're almost all mega-cities. Brisbane doesn't really fit into that mold. And they can't play the new continent card like Rio or home of the Olympics like Athens. Probably shouldn't count on lucking into an Olympics like Atlanta did. As the story goes.. Brisbane could host an Olympics. Just like St. Louis could or Minneapolis or even Boston. The more important question is.. should they host an Olympics? And what's going to be their story if they try for one?
  3. I don't know that I agree with all of that. Do we really know if the IOC is that excited for Australia or does it just have that appearance that there's an interested party in the wake of a vote that got decided because 1 of the parties wasn't all that interested? It's encouraging that the Aussies are committed and enthusiastic. But do they have a plan in place? Can they successfully execute that plan? Does it make sense for both them and the IOC? Are there other cities out there that are worth a look as well? You're absolutely right these things take time to unfold. And it would be really irresponsible of the IOC to rush through this process. There's no reason for them to do that and I don't think we should start to assume that will happen just because it can. Besides, what about 2030? Shouldn't that happen before 2032? You mention LA getting 2028 more than a decade out. Don't forget that LA had been pursuing an Olympics for years before the 2024 bid came into being. And it was a full 2 years from when LA officially submitted their bid to the IOC before they made the deal for 2028. So if the path to a Brisbane Olympics is secured government support from all levels, plans taking shape, and evaluating potentially European bidders).. that's not something likely to happen in a matter of months. More likely it'll take years. I agree we could see the 2032 Olympics before 2025. But I think we're looking at closer to 2025 than 2019. Either way, let's not make the jump from "Australia is interested in an Olympics" to "let's lock them in as soon as possible"
  4. Just so I have this straight.. 1 or both of you are suggesting that Australia might be awarded the 2032 Olympics in the next few months and that it's already a done deal? Perhaps we should wait until we actually see if they have their act together and not give them the Olympics at the first sign of interest, 13 years out from 2032. No.. it would be the polar opposite of good for the IOC to do that. Everyone involved might want to think this all through and plan it out first.
  5. Did not know that. That's interesting they're clearing almost all the way out for the Olympics. Although worth noting.. the Cup series is off for 2 weeks, but the XFinity Series has a race the middle weekend of the Olympics. So that will tie up a couple of afternoons for them. IndyCar usually has a gap of a few weeks in August, so I have a feeling they'll do something similar next summer. In 2016, set it up so that Olympic coverage on NBCSN ended coverage at 3pm on the final Sunday so it could lead directly into coverage of the IndyCar race from Pocono. Don't think it will be so neat and tidy this time around. Also possible the Premier League will get underway that last weekend of the Olympics, so that could be some coveage on that final Saturday of the games. It'll all probably be similar to what we saw from PyeongChang. No idea if there will be anything else of note on the calendar. What's cool is that Olympic competition begins at 9am Wednesday, July 22nd with women's softball. So not impossible we could see NBCSN up and running with Olympic coverage as early as Tuesday night here in the States.
  6. We're drifting so far away from where I started here, I'm not even sure how we got to this point. Whatever. Last thing I'll say here.. You mention that Stockholm will remember their bid history if they bid again. I don't necessarily disagree with that, but that history isn't going to be so black and white as winning or losing. The vote totals tell a story. That story can't predict the future, but it still matters. Much like Almaty, if they were to bid again, would want to acknowledge how many votes they got in 2022, not simply that they lost. Doesn't predict how they'd fare if they bid again. It's still notable though.
  7. That's not poking fun. That's me acknowledging I understand your position. Whereas you misrepresent mine constantly. That's why I have to keep repeating it. LOL.. my opinion was that there wouldn't be a double and that none of the potential scenarios had any realistic shot of happening. So.. WTF are we even arguing about here then? I said to you (and you know I said to you) that if both Milan and Stockholm dropped out, then that could create some predictable scenarios. That didn't happen though. Salt Lake never actually made their way into the conversation. Sapporo was never discussed as part of another allocation. If you're going to play the "Quaker thinks he knows everything" line, maybe save it for something I actually got wrong and not where everyone else who had a different opinion didn't get it right. Holy projections, Batman. You're going to talk about being argumentative in the process of doing just that? Here's the thing about the charter. It was amended to allow for bi-national bids. Guess what.. that already happened before it was in the charter. Just like it's being discussed here about another double. If the charter says anything about it, what does that say about the double that already happened when it wasn't in the charter? Stop playing Double's Advocate just because you want to oppose my position, which you continue to twist to suit your own narrative. If a realistic scenario comes up in the future where a double "makes sense" and the "circumstances" are right, I can assure you I will acknowledge it. Until then, it's more fantasy talk than reality, which sadly has become par for the course for this site too often. My advice to you.. get over yourself and stop trying to do the whole "oooh, Quaker is so full of himself, I need to take him down a peg" routine. You were the one who goaded me into this argument here in this thread. Remember that.
  8. In the context of the Olympics, I think you used to perfect word earlier.. "indifference" If New York got the Olympics, great. If not, no big deal. No one would think less of New York if that had happened and postscript of the 2012 bid is that it spurred on a number of projects that were connected with the bid. But again, don't conflate that with New York's general attitudes towards sports. Between 2007 and 2012, the New York metro area saw construction of 2 new baseball stadiums, a new football stadium, 2 new arenas plus a massive renovation of a 3rd. The total price tag for those venues was probably right in line if not higher than what would have been spent on the Olympics. I think the best way to put it is that New York cares about its own sports.. local teams and events that they have built up. As opposed to bringing in an event to try and use to showcase to the world.
  9. My goodness, how many times are we going to have to do this? I am not and have never permanently shot down that a double could ever happen again. But you brought up the key word... circumstances. Maybe we should figure out what those circumstances are that would lead to a double rather than (to use one of my expressions which I know you've become a fan of) throwing darts at a dart board. Because some people here are really really shitty at doing that, particularly the ones trying to predict the next 7 Olympic hosts in 1 post. And the only "circumstance" that comes into play for them is 'well it happened last time, so that's a thing now, let's be morons and assume it's going to happen again.' The question shouldn't be why can't/won't it happen. The question should be what can and would make it happen? Rarely do you have a sensible answer for that. You're smarter than some of the rest of the dart throwers around here. You usually have enough forethought to think about how it might come to pass. But how realistic are any of those "possibilities," especially where all hell DIDN'T break loose for 2026. You like to poke fun at me sometimes how I bring up that 2024/2028 set itself up perfect to where the double "made sense" for the IOC. Just because there is the potential for some unorthodox thinking and approaches to bidding (which is hard to predict at this point what that will give us) shouldn't lead us to think that's going to happen again just because it happened once. Could it? Sure. Will it? Probably not and you know that. I'm saying I don't think there's going to be a double (NOT that there *can't* be a double.. get the argument straight) and I'm sticking with it because I don't see that scenario presenting itself, just like I thought with 2026. So what's the point of constantly trying to fight me on this as if you're only trying to take a position to oppose me that you barely believe in yourself. You do realize what that's very literally the definition of. Except I'll rename it for you because it fits perfectly. You are playing Double's Advocate!!
  10. I honestly have no idea if that's something I said, but that's not the point anyway. What I know I did say (repeatedly) is that 2022 was a competition between a giant douche and a turd sandwich. What would happen is that turd sandwich came back to bid for 2026 and faced stronger competition? They ain't getting 40 votes, that's for sure. Not as an Asian bid following up 2 Asian Winter Olympics. The analogy that applies for Sweden is that they were a flawed bid up against another flawed bid, just like Almaty was. And part of the reason to not expect them back in the next cycle is because if their bid is still flawed (which it likely would be), what kind of chances would they have against stronger competition? As opposed to bids like PyeongChang and Tokyo and Rio which were much more committed in the long term to get selected rather than a country like Sweden which isn't necessarily going to be there every time. That all said, the point about the vote totals is this. Looking back on the 2022 vote, how many people - here and elsewhere - probably have it in their heads that Almaty never was going to win that vote up against Beijing? Well.. they almost did. Much like we saw with the 2012 vote, who's to say a random comment by 1 of the Beijing officials may have swayed a few opinions. In which case we have a completely different outcome and narrative that follows. Sweden wasn't as close, but again, look at the "who will win" thread. It was far from a given that Milan was going to be the winner and only in hindsight could it be said it was that obviously Sweden didn't have the goods. It was a very half-baked show, so it's tough to figure on that hypothetical. Still, don't get so caught up on the story that got created AFTER the vote, that they went with the bigger city/country that would wine and dine them, so that's what they picked. Think about what it looked like BEFORE the vote, which may tell a different story, but that's how it all played out as things went along. That's really the way you have to look at it. What could Sweden have done differently that would have changed the opinions of 7 of the 47 who voted for Milan. What could have changed the story that we're telling now which is that Milan won because they and their citizens were more supportive. Plus the 34 who weren't so impressed by that and picked Stockholm anyway. Those numbers aren't trying to predict the future or make any presumptions about a future bid. But I think it tells the story that we didn't have a sure outcome until the envelope was opened. Which is usually the case.
  11. Have you ever actually been to New York before? Going to guess no based on that statement. Yankee Stadium. Madison Square Garden. Belmont Park. Arthur Ashe Stadium. The New York City Marathon. Those are some of the most iconic venues and events in the United States. You still sure New York doesn't gain status from sports? Yes, the city was largely indifferent to the 2012 Olympics because it wouldn't have defined us. Much like the 2014 Super Bowl which didn't register as much as it does in other cities. You're right.. New York probably wouldn't care to be part of an Olympic bid. But that's absolutely ridiculous to think that the city doesn't use sports as a status symbol.
  12. The cat is somewhat already out of the bag on that one. They already accepted a bi-national bid. So it's probably a move they need to make the normalize those bids of bids. It's not like they can't (or won't) reject a bid out of hand if they feel like it.
  13. I don't think they're a lost cause. They just need to figure out how to get better engagement from top to bottom, the government down to the citizenry. I don't think that's an impossible task and maybe for all the talk about how the IOC reforms were somewhat meaningless that maybe that will change in time. That's a lot to ask on both ends, but eventually I think Sweden will get an Olympics. Whether that happens anytime in the foreseeable future is the question.
  14. They had 34 IOC voters on their side in spite of what hindsight tells us was a bid that couldn't win. Just like 40 out of 84 voters wanted Almaty. A few voters have a change of heart and it's a completely different outcome. We shouldn't pretend like we knew for sure on Sunday this was going to happen like we're thinking about it now. IMO the vote total is not insignificant if we're trying to give this an honest assessment of what went down. Let alone if we're look ahead to the future of Sweden's potential at bidding again. That's a better assessment. Because - and I think you would agree - that we shouldn't expect their tune to change and if it doesn't, they probably don't have much of a chance at succeeding against another solid bid, let alone a less than solid bid like Milan's. And if they had gone forward with their 2022 bid, would all those same factors have sunk them against Beijing?
  15. There's literally 1 and only 1 mention of the word "double" in that article. And that people are talking about it here.. how'd that work out for 2026 when much of the same crowd was suggesting the same thing that it would happen for 2026-2030?
  16. Bullshit. Salt Lake was within a few votes of winning the `98 Olympics in a vote that took place less than a year after Atlanta's win. Then they're back 4 years later and win it on the first ballot against 3 other cities. The bribery scandal was a part of that, but let's not paint a picture that Ostersund would have been the winner if not for what happened behind the scenes. Remains to be seen what the new approach for the IOC will be, but it only works if there's interest on the other side. As much as the IOC can entice various NOC's to bid, it's almost a waste of time to start calling up those countries and trying to get them into the mix. At least we've already reached a point where the IOC is more than willing to dump bids they know won't pass the grade much moreso than in the old days when they shortlisted candidates and usually kept more involved than necessary. That should be a thing of the past (hopefully)
  17. What did they want though? I'm guessing they made it pretty clear to them that political and financial support was necessarily and that the IOC simply wasn't comfortable with what they were seeing. Besides, it's not like the Italian bid isn't spread out over a pretty wide region. So they're not without their own pitfalls. Of course the IOC was going to do everything they could to keep this from being a 1 horse race, but how disingenuous were they really being? We've discussed the whole Agenda 2020/New Norm thing to death here, but it constantly gets forgotten that Agenda 2020 isn't about finding the right city to host the Olympics. It's (supposed to be) to create the means for cities to work better with the IOC to deliver an Olympics. And at the end of the day, Sweden simply didn't have what the IOC was looking for.
  18. LOL, the Scandies. Yes, the Norwegian IOC member and their IOC - the ones that were publicly called out after the Oslo bid fell apart - are considering bidding again. Whether or not they actually bid isn't the issue. But does that sound like a group of people who got turned off from Olympic bidding because of a bad experience. Yes, we now know after the fact that they lost. Didn't know that on Sunday. And plenty of people thought Sweden was going to pull it off. Don't lose sight of what led up to Monday, just like with Almaty where they nearly beat out Beijing. In the context of Sweden's future with Olympic bidding, it shouldn't be so black and white that they lost and that's that. More than 40% is not a small number. It's probably not something the Swedes are likely to build on the way PyeongChang did, but if you're pushing the idea that they're going to remember what happened, then history should remember that 34 IOC members wanted the Olympics in Stockholm. We agree on a lot of points on whether or not Stockholm will bid again, whether it's for 2030 or 2034 or later than that. On the list of what will determine when (or if) that happens, pretty far down on that list is their bid history. If it's about Scandinavians being pragmatic, I'm with you there. Lack of political support? Absolutely no argument. But their history IMO is neither here nor there when they make that decision. It's not going to be a deciding factor, nor is the manner in which they lost this week.
  19. And yet it was. Aside from polling, it seemed as though the Swedes simply weren't as engaged with the Olympic efforts as the Italians. So that winds up being a big turn-off.
  20. To be fair, at the time of the 2016 vote, the Brazilian economy was in a better place by the time they hosted. 7 years later, not so much. So there's only so much that the IOC can be blamed for make that decision at the time they did. Yes, the Swedes lacked a narrative, perhaps in part from the fear of putting themselves out there knowing their efforts lacked support. I agree the logistics weren't a huge issue and that the IOC could have gotten behind it if the Swedish organizers and their citizens were backing it.
  21. I agree it doesn't look good for the next couple of cycles. But that's a different narrative than "they're going to remember this loss" as if that will be their motivation to not bid again. If they sit out 2030 and 2034, is it because of how they felt in the 72 hours after the vote or is it more about a calculated risk to not push through another potentially flawed bid effort against even stronger competition? The dust needs to settle before we can give an honest assessment of their future. Not to mention, like you said, the IOC may be moving in a direction that makes it tougher to predict how the bid processes will go. I agree with that assessment as well, and unless they can change that, it will be tough for a Swedish bid to win. But that's largely on them moreso than the IOC. Next time around, maybe they'll want it more and will push harder to win it. It they don't, we'll likely wind right back where we are. That said, perhaps the argument can be made that the memory of this week will be less about the manner in which they lost and more to highlight what went wrong to learn a lesson for next time. They did, but look at Norway who got called out pretty scathingly by the IOC and are still considering another bid in the not too distant future. Again, that reaction came in the heat of the moment of just having lost. A year from now or 5 years or 10 years, will that memory still be fresh in their minds to the point it will weigh on their decision whether to bid or not? How many twists and turns were there in this bid cycle including more times than we can count that we were declaring Sweden's bid dead in the water? Yet they made it to the finish line and let's not lose sight of the fact that 34 voters (more than 40%) picked Sweden. Looking back on it, maybe it wasn't the smartest thing to react to every piece of news in the moment as if it was a giant shift in the race. Similarly here.. the decision on whether or not Sweden will bid again isn't going to be made now. It's going to be made down the line when what happened this week isn't such a recent memory.
  • Create New...